
y. ,^^ 



^- 



iV- 




, » " • . 



v^. 



A*^' ♦ ,4 






O I 





>° 




^0 


.^^'^ 














"^'^..^'' 


.; 








' 6 » " • 




'- 


•** 


0^ 




■^oV*- 


• 


,-1 


o^ 




,0^. 



sO' 



'V 



\-rjr?'h~. 



\oirvi;irb^ - 






■ .^"^ 







,o^J 



j5^x. 












^o•n= 









^'i^.^ 



» » ^V 






C|e |(el)ras(v!i ^lill 



SPEECH 



JOHN W. ANDREWS, ESQ., 



MEETING OF CITIZENS 



COLUMBCS, OHIO, HFXD FEBRUARY Uth, A.D. 1851. 



COLUMBUS, OHIO:;d 

PRINTED AT THE STATE JOURNAL OFFICE. 

1854. 



SA^ 



KS^ 



NEBRASKA MEETING. 



A NUMEROUSLY attended public meeting of those cit- 
izens of Columbus, O., opposed to the " Nebraska Bill, 
now pending in the Senate of the United States," was 
held in the First Presbyterian Church, on Tuesday 
evening, February 14, 1854. 

On motion of Hon, Joseph Eidgway, Judge J. R. 
Swan was appointed President, and Wm. Blynn, Sec- 
retary. 

On motion of John W. Andrews, Esq., a committee 
of nine, consisting of the following gentlemen, were 
appointed to present resolutions to the meeting : 

John W. Andrews, L. Goodale, 

Peter Hayden, F. C. Kelton, 

Joseph Ridgway, A. P. Stone, 

J. P. Bruck, Eli W. Gwynne, 

C. P. L. Butler. 

After a brief retirement of the committee, J. W. 
Andrews, Esq., Chairman, reported the following 
preamble and resolutions, which were unanimously 
adopted : 



WiiErvEAS, The act of March 0th, 1820, commonly called the Mis- 
souri Compromise, embraces in its limits about four hundred and eigh- 
ty-five thousand square miles of free territory, ■which is not included in 
any existing State or Territorial organization, being an area of more 
than twelve times the extent of the State of Ohio — as great as that of 
all the free States of this Union, excepting California — and capable, as 
we believe, of sustaining a population of at least fifty millions of people, 
which said act is as follows : 

" Sec. 8. Be it further enacted, That in all that territory, ceded by Franco to 
the United States under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six 
degrees and thirty minutes of north latitude, not included within the limits of the 
State contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than 
as the punishment of crimes, shall be and is hereby ioklver prouibited." 

Therefore 

1. Resolved, That the act of March G, 1820, commonly called the 
Missouri Compromise, is a solemn compact between the North and the 
South ; that the North has faithfully lived up to its spirit and letter, 
and that we deem it dishonest for any American statesman, and above 
all for a Northern or Western statesman, to lend himself directly or in- 
directly, to its violation. 

2. Resolved, That this meeting is disposed, in good faith, to stand 
by the Compromises of 1850 ; and that we intend, as far as in us lies, 
to see to it, that others, in like good faith, stand by the Compromise of 
1820. 

3. Resolved, That it is our deliberate judgment, that the people of 
the North and West have not been treated with proper respect, in the 
shallow and false pretence, officially made to them in 1854, that the 
Missouri Compromise of 1820 was superseded by, or is inconsistent with 
the Compromises of 1850. We deny that such is the fact. Not one 
citizen of Ohio, or so far as we know or believe, of the United States, 
ev?r before suspected that such was the fact. We deem it a gross in- 
sult to the intelligence of the countr3% to say so. If, however, at the 
time of the passage of the acts of 1850, referred to, such was supposed 
by Senators and Representatives to be the fact, we demand of them, as 
statesmen, asking the confidence of the country, and as uprigiit men, 
not too high for public sentiment to reach them, wiiv it was that in 
1850 they d.vkkd to withhold this infoum.\tion fko.m tiieiu constit- 
uents ? The people of the West demand an answer to this question 
from their pultlic men. 



4. Resolved, That, in the opinion of this mooting, the character of 
Northern and Western men is not understood by the framers of the hill 
for organizing the territory of Nebraska, now before the Senate of the 
United States — that the forbearance manifested by them, under the acts 
of 1850, sprung solely from the fact that, under the Constitution of 
the United States, they believed such forbearance to be a duty — that 
it is a mistake to suppose that they are not jealous of their rights and 
honor — that they regard the bill referred to as an outrage upon both — 
that upon the subject of the Missouri Compromise, they will know no 
compromise, but they will maintain it, in all its integrity and fullness, 
to the extent of their powers, at all hazards, and to the last extremity, 
•whatever those hazards and that extremity may be. 

5. Resolved, That we deplore all further agitation upon the subject 
of Slavery, knowing it to be full of evil ; but that it is forced upon 
us, and we do not hesitate to meet it. That if this deep and intolerable 
wrong toward the North and West — toward every free laborer in the 
U. States and his children's children — is to be persisted in by those 
who have it in charge, we recommend to our fellow citizens through- 
out the State, to meet in their respective counties, and express their 
views and determination upon this subject ; and further, that a Con- 
vention OP THE PEOPLE OF Onio, be held, to utter the voice of the 
State for or against the extension under the sanction of the Government 
of the United States, of slavery over territory now free. 

6. Resolved, That this subject rises above all party politics and 
politicians ; that it involves questions touching good faith — the solem- 
nity of contracts — the integrity of public men ; that the people both 
North and South are satisfied with the Missouri Compromise — not a 
voice has been raised against it, during the existence of more than one 
whole generation of men — that the attack now made upon it has not 
come from the people, but has been sprung upon the people. We make 
our first solemn appeal to the statesmen of the country to defeat this 
unjust bill ; and if they prove faithless, we recommend that an appeal 
be at once made to the people, not only upon this bill, but to recon- 
sider THE WHOLE SUBJECT OF COMPROMISES. 

7. Resolved, That copies of these resolutions be sent to our Sen- 
ators and Eepresentatives in Congress from the State of Ohio ; and as 
a proof of our confidence in his wisdom and patriotism, and in his will- 
ingness and ability to meet this crisis, to the Hon. Thomas H. Benton, 



of Missouri, and that these resolutions be published in the several news- 
papers of this city. 

J. W. Andrews, Esq., and Hon. Samuel Galloway 
addressed the meeting. 

On motion, the thanks of the meeting were returned 
to the Trustees of the church, for the use of their 
house. 

On motion, the meeting adjourned. 

J. R. SWAN, President. 
Wm. Blynn, Secretary/. 

On presenting the foregoing resolutions, Mn. Andrews said, sub- 
stantially, as follows : 

I regret, Mr. Chairman, that the duty has been laid 
upon me to address this meeting. I have been re- 
quested, however, to do so ; and I shall not shrink 
from it. We are all, in some measure, acquainted with 
the history of the Missouri Compromise. In 1818, the 
inhabitants of the Missouri Territory applied to Con- 
gress for authority to form a State Constitution, and 
for admission into the Union. A bill passed the House 
of Representatives, by a decided vote, authorizing the 
formation of a State government, but requiring that 
the Constitution of the new State should contain an 
article providing for the abolition of existing slavery, 
and prohibiting the further introduction of slaves. In 
the Senate, this provision was rejected ; and, in conse- 



quence of the disagreement between the two Houses, 
the bill was lost. The country was at once agitated 
to its centre. We had not then, as now, our tele- 
graphs, and railroads, and mighty inland commerce to 
bind us together. In the judgment of the statesmen 
of that day, and the opinion of later times has con- 
firmed that judgment, the Union was in imminent 
danger of destruction. At the next session, the con- 
troversy was renewed, and again the House of Eepre- 
sentatives inserted the same provision, prohibiting 
slavery. The Senate again rejected this provision. 
The crisis had come. It seemed inevitable that there 
'must be a compromise or a dissolution of the Union. 
Mr. Clay interposed with all his tact and statesman- 
ship, and at last a compromise was proposed by the 
Senate, and agreed upon, to the effect that Missouri 
should come into the union with slavery ; and the fol- 
lowing section was added to the bill : 

"Sec. 8. Be it further enacted, That in all that territory ceded 
by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which 
lies north of 36° and 30' of north latitude, not included within the lim- 
its of the State contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servi- 
tude, otherwise than as the punishment of crime, shall be and is hereby 
forever prohibited. 

Such is, substantially, the history of the famous Mis- 
souri Compromise. 

There are some facts in reference to this act, which 
give it a deep interest in the eyes of northern men. In 



8 

the first place, this Compromise was the result of a 
great struggle, in -which it met with the almost unbro- 
ken hostility of the North. In the course of thirty 
years, however, its fruits and advantages have begun 
to show themselves ; and, at last, the public sentiment 
of the North, and West, has ripened into reverence for 
an enactment that cost so much, and that seems so full 
of blessing for the future. Besides, many great and 
good men at the North, who, from high motives of 
patriotism alone were induced to sustain the Missouri 
Compromise, were sacrificed upon it, in the first fury 
of popular indignation, and went down to their graves 
loaded with reproach and obloquy. The Missouri 
Compromise has, at last, come to take its place in the 
aff"ections of the North, by the side of the Constitution. 
Of the Compromises of 1850, I need not say much. 
They consisted of the act for the admission of Califor- 
nia into the Union, the acts for organizing the Terri- 
tories of Utah and New Mexico, the act for regulating 
the boundaries of Texas, the act for prohibiting the 
slave trade in the District of Columbia, and the act in 
relation to fugitive slaves. 

Now, what effect had these acts upon the Missouri 
Compromise ? I will refer you, on this point, to Sen- 
ators who took part in them. 

In his great speech of March 7tli, 1850, upon the 



fugitive slave bill, which I was so fortunate as to hear, 
Mr. Webster used the following language : 

"And I now say, Sir, as the proposition upon which I stand this 
day, and upon the truth and firmness of which I intend to act until it 
is overthrown, that there is not at this moment within the United States 
a single foot of land, the character of which, in regard to its being free- 
soil territory, or slave territory, is not fixed by some law, and some ir- 
repealable law, beyond the power of the action of the Government." 

Now you will notice two facts in reference to this 
language. First, it impliedly asserts the constitution- 
ality of the Missouri Compromise, and says that it is 
irrepealable ; next, it takes for granted that it was still 
in existence. If it had been repealed or superseded 
by the acts of 1850, I think Mr. Webster would have 
known it. 

I will next refer you to an extract from a speech 
delivered by Mr. Atchison, a Senator from Missouri, 
at the last session of Congress, upon this subject. His 
language is as follows : 

"I have always been of opinion, that the first great error committed 
in the political history of this country, was the ordinance of 1787, ren- 
dering the North Western Territory free territory. The next great er- 
ror, was the Missouri Compromise. But they are both irremediable. 
There is no remedy for them — we must submit to them. I am prepared 
to do it. It is evident that the Missouri Compromise cannot be repeal- 
ed. So far as that question is concerned, we might as well agree to the 
admission of this territory now, as next year, or five or ten years hence." 

Mr. Atchison, I take it, is a high-toned southern 
gentleman, who, like other southern gentlemen, as 
stated by the Union, in an extract to which I will call 



10 

your attention hereafter, was willing faithfully to abide 
by the terms of this " solemn covenant." He was not 
aware, that there was then in the Senate a Western 
gentleman who felt differently, and who at the proper 
time would be able and willing to give him the grati- 
fying information, that the " second great error," the 
Missouri Compromise, had been corrected by repealing 
it, while he (Mr. Atchison) was in the Senate, but 
without his knowing of the fact. 

But let me go one step further, and quote from the 
Union, the administration paper at Washington, a part 
of an editorial, published as late as January 20, 1854: 

"Wo have never yielded to the Missouri Compromise any other 
obligatory force than that which attaches to a solemn covenant entered 
into by two opposing parties for the preservation of amicable relations. 
To such considerations we have felt bound to yield as ready an acquies- 
cence as if the Compromise was the law of the land, not only in form, 
but in substance and reality. Viewed as a legal question, we should 
be constrained to pronounce it unsustaincd by constitutional authority ; 
viewed as the evidence of a compromise of conflicting interests and 
opinions, we have been ready to waive the legal question, and to abide 
faithfully by its terms. If we have studied the Soutiiekn sentiment 
CORUECTLY, this has been the view taken of the Missouri Compromise 
in that division of the Union. 

The editor did not know that a AVestern Senator 
was ready, with his own hands, to tear up and annul 
this " solemn covenant." (See note.) 

A bill for organizing the Territory of Nebraska was 
introduced into Congress last year, and passed the 
House of Representatives, but was lost for want of 



11 

time, as I understand it, in the Senate. It was not 
then supposed by its framers, that the Missouri Com- 
promise had been superseded, and, of course, no allu- 
sion is made to it in the bill. Another bill for the 
same purpose was introduced at the present session ; 
but for the same reason, I presume, the important fact 
that the Missouri Compromise had been virtually re- 
pealed, does not appear in the bill. 

On the 23d day of January, however, this fact w^as 
disclosed, by way of amendment, to the bill then pend- 
ing ; the Chairman (Mr. Douglas) stating that this 
amendment had been omitted by a clerical error. The 
amendment thus introduced has been since amended, 
and the last amendment was introduced on the 7th 
day of February, as follows : 

"Mr. D. said be proposed to amend the bill so as to obviate all ob- 
jections entertained by the friends of the measure. He had conferred 
with several Senators on the subject, and he thought the amendment 
would meet with the general acquiescence. He then moved to amend 
the bill by striking out from the 14th section the words, ' which was su- 
perseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called 
the compromise measures, and is hereby declared inoperative,' and to 
insert, ' which being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention 
by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories as recognized by 
the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, is 
hereby declared inoperative and void ; it being the true intent and 
meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, 
nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly 
free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, 
subject only to the Constitution of the United States.' " 

Now, in order that there may be no misunderstand- 



12 

ing in tliis matter, I will read you an extract from Mr. 
Douglas' speech on this subject, delivered on the 30th 
of January last. He says : 

" I do not believe there is a man in Congress who thinks it could l3e 
permanently a slaveholding country. I have no idea that it could. All 
I have to say on that subject is, that, when you create them into a Ter- 
ritory, you thereby acknowledge that they ought to be considered a dis- 
tinct political organization ; and when you give them in addition a Leg- 
islature, you thereby confess that they are competent to exercise tlie 
powers of legislation. If they wish slavery they have a right to it ; if 
they do not want it, they will not have it, and you should not force it 
upon them." 

Now, Sir, this brings us right to the subject matter 
of our present meeting. Under the Missouri Compro- 
mise, slavery, north of 36° 30' north latitude, is for- 
ever prohibited by law. Under Mr. Douglas' bill, if 
it becomes a law, to use his own language, if the peo- 
ple of Nebraska " wish slavery, they have a right to 
it ; " that is, if this bill becomes a law, slavery, by a 
positive enactment of the Congress of the United 
States, will thereby be authorized to exist forever, in 
territory from which, by the Missouri Compromise, 
now in force, it is excluded forever. 

It is said, however, that, by the bill for organizing 
the territory of Utah, the Missouri Compromise was 
superseded, because a portion of territory covered by 
it was included in the territory of Utah, and thus made 
subject to a new law in reference to slavery. I beg 
leave to answer this argument, by quoting from Mr. 



13 

Everett's speech, just delivered in the Senate. He 
says : 

"Now, in reference to Utah, it is true, certainly, there is a small 
spot, a very small spot, in the Sierra Madre that was taken from the old 
Louisiana purchase and thrown into Utah ; but I venture to say that 
probably not a member of the Senate, except the worthy chairman of 
the Committee on Territories, was aware of that fact. I do not mean 
that he made any secret of it, but it was not made a point at all. The 
Senate were not apprised that if they did this thing, if they took this 
little piece of land, which Col. Fremont calls the Middle Park, out of 
the old Louisiana purchase, and put it into Utah, they would repeal the 
Missouri compromise of 1820, which covers half a million of square 
miles. I say, sir, most assuredly the Senate were told no such thing ; 
nor do I think it was within the knowledge or the imagination of an in- 
dividual member of the body." 

I would like, Mr. Chairman, to know when the 
people of this country ever asked for the repeal of the 
Missouri Compromise'? Why, then, is this attempt 
made 1 Do the people rule, or do the politicians rule 
in these United States 1 The people did not ask this 
repeal. No southern man could be found bold enough 
to propose it in the Senate. I should like to know 
why a Western man proposed it. I should like to 
know what reason induced him to do so. Was it to 
avoid agitation ? 

There is yet another explanation that would grat- 
ify me very much. This amendment in reference 
to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, was intro- 
duced into the Senate on the 23d day of January last. 
I find from the report of the proceedings on the 7th 
instant, that Mr. Douglas said he "did not wish 



14 

to prevent discussion on the bill," and " expressed the 
hope that they might be able to obtain a vote by Sat- 
urday, the 11th inst." I would like to know, whether 
it is usual to hasten a bill of this character, and involv- 
ing such momentous consequences, through the Senate 
of the United States in so short a time 1 I may be 
mistaken in reference to this matter, and hope I am, 
but my understanding of it is, that the bill is to be 
passed, if possible, before the people can be heard upon 
it ; and after it has become a law, w^e are to be told 
that we had better not try to repeal it, that it will be 
dangerous to agitate the country, and that the South 
will never consent to its repeal. I am inclined to 
think, Mr. Chairman, that if this bill becomes a law, 
the South WILL consent to its repeal. 

It is said, however, that this is not a practical ques- 
tion, and that slaves can never go further north than 
36° 80' north latitude. Well, if this is so, how comes 
it that so much slavery has already gone north of 36° 
30' north latitude, in Missouri ? I see no reason why 
it would not go as far north as it has heretofore gone, 
and that is far enough to make several new slave States. 
But it is to be remembered, that Indiana, as late as 
1807, requested Congress to authorize slavery in that 
Territory. "VVe cannot tell how far slavery will go. 
That it will fill up a considerable part of the southern 
half of the territory referred to, if permitted to go there. 



u 

I have no doubt. But if slavery will never go there, 
why is the country to be agitated for the sake of re- 
pealing the Missouri Compromise, which prohibits it 
from going there ? Besides, this would seem to be an 
exclusively northern question. If I buy an article 
and pay for it, it is strange logic that the seller, after 
pocketing the money, may in good faith refuse to give 
me the article, because, in his opinion, it is good for 
nothing. This is not chivalry. It is iniquity. 

Fellow citizens, I have detained you too long. 
There are one or two other points, on which I will 
touch for a moment, and bring my remarks to a close. 

This Territory, protected by the Missouri Compro- 
mise, is a vast region, and of incalculable worth in 
the future growth of the country. I wish to see it 
the home of free labor. I wish labor to be reputable 
in this Territory, and idleness a reproach. Manual 
labor is not reputable in slave States, and, from the 
nature of things, cannot be so. 

I d^o not wish young men of Ohio to be shut out 
from this Territory because they are working men, 
and cannot, for that reason, hold a respectable social 
position in contact with slavery. I believe that the 
towns and cities, the churches and school houses that, 
within fifty years, will cover this whole country, if free 
territory, are to be built up, Avith all its untold wealth, 
by this class of men. 



16 

We have also yearly arriving upon our shores, some 
three or four hundred thousand emigrants, who come 
from the oppression and degradation of the old world, 
to seek homes in the new. Now these men will not go, 
and they ought not to go, where slavery exists. Leave 
this great territory free, and there is room enough for 
them to pour in upon it for many generations. 

I do not, Mr. Chairman, refer to these men, from 
any political feeling, for any party objects. I do not 
allude to them because they are, or are to be, voters. 
I want not their votes. 1 seek only to promote their 
best interests and happiness. I am here simply as an 
independent American citizen, proud of the character 
and name, to unite with my fellow citizens in denoun- 
cing what I believe to be an atrocious wrong that 
threatens the country. 

My views in regard to the course that we should 
pursue, are embodied in the resolutions, which, by the 
instruction of the committee, I have now submitted. 
I stand by these resolutions to-night, and I intend with 
whatever strength I have, to stand by them hereafter, 
as long as there shall remain one star above the hori- 
zon, to give hope of the defeat of this bill, or if it be- 
comes a law, of the possibility of its repeal. 

If this bill becomes a law, and shall be found to be 
in-epealable, and slavery steps in upon this free terri- 
tory, tlie time I think will have arrived for the North 
and West, to calculate the value of the Union. 



7 



N T E. 

The New York Evening Post of the lOtli inst., as quoted by lion. 
S. Galloway, in his speecli on the evening of tlie 14tli inst., states, that 
after the passage of the Coniproniisc acts of l!^CO, Mr. Douglas found 
it necessary to defend his votes upon them, and in the course of his 
address, said : 

"I am prepared to stand or fall by the American Union, clinging 
with the tenacity of life, to all its glorious memories of the past, and 
the precious hopes of the future, and among those glorious niemoriea 
of the past, I pronounce the Compromise of 1820 to be one." 

At the meeting hpld in Chicago in 1850, to sustain his course in the 
Senate, the following resolution was drawn up by Judge Douglas, and 
adopted : 

" Resolved, That we will stand or fall by the American Union, and 
the Constitution with all its Compromises, with its precious memories of 
the past, and glorious hopes of the future." 

The following is a joint resolution of the State of Missouri, passed 
in 1847, showing the estimate which a Slaveholding State puts upon 
the Missouri Compromise : 

Resolved, By the General Assembly of the State of Missouri as fol- 
lows : 

Sec. 1. That the peace, permanency, and welfare of our National 
Union depend upon a strict adherence to the letter and spirit of the 
eight section of the act of Congress of the United States, entitled "An 
act to authorize the people of Missouri Territory to form a Constitution 
and State Government, and for admission of such State into the Union, 
on an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit Slavery in 
certain territories," approved March the sixth, eighteen hundred and 
twenty. 

Sec. 2. That our Senators in the Congress of the United States 
are hereby instructed, and our Representatives requested to vote in 
accordance with the provisions and the spirit of the said eighth sec- 
tion of the said act, in all questions which may come before them, in 
relation to the organization of new territories or States, out of the ter- 
ritories now belonging to the United States, or which may hereafter be 
acquired either by purchase, by treaty, or conquest. 

Sec. 3. Resolved, That a copy of those resolutions shall be for- 
warded by the Secretary of State, to each of our Senators and llepre- 
eentatives in Congress of the United States. 

Approved February 15th, 1847. 



^46 









^^.0^^ V?^-\^^ X^-'^^V X-t^r? 



^0^ *iLLr* "^^ V .v'-V"' '<^- 



'"^ .•::.'♦ *> 






















^ 









"^bV^ 


'^ °«. - 


^°- 



.'i'^ 









>y^i^:^ 



.0^ 









.'V 










.0* .♦' 




^o 











OV ** • * 'rf^ 










